tv [untitled] September 3, 2012 10:30pm-11:00pm PDT
compliance to get initially to the recurrence of 10 recurrences per year, but also redundancy in the future anticipated reduction we may face in the upcoming renewal process. we also wanted to incorporate green. as we discussed at that time, we looked at various sites tunnels and recommended a 34 ft. diameter tunnel at a cost of just over $1.2 billion. at that time, we also discussed the possibility that the 10 discharges per year could be achieved with a smaller diameter tunnel. since the last workshop, we have connected as bad -- additional studies and determined that the infrastructure would like to get us to 10. however, the total cost of that would be just under $1.3
billion. in finalizing the budget for the bayside, we recommend going with the 1.29 $4 billion. -- the $1.29 4 billion. in this way, as we continue to develop this project, we can determine the right combination of tunnel size and green infrastructure to accomplish our project executive -- objectives. this would be accomplished through the ongoing watershed process, utilizing the triple bottom line analyses, and the planning and ceqa review that will be undertaken as part of the central bayside project. these analyses will be guided by the permit negotiations that will begin this fall, and of course, the performance from the green infrastructure or the
invitation projects. this project has a total of one -- $1.29 4 billion and a total impact of 20 two dollars per month per average bill. when we move to the west side, we focus on the csd discharges along ocean beach, lincoln way, the 70 -- vicente and merced. we had an average discharge our current of 3 per year to the bathing beaches. in doing these analyses, we focused on utilizing the transport storage boxes, the website pump station, and the existing out hall. we looked at various pop stations to get as to the target
of three. you may recall that we had 100 stations at a cost of $277 million. we also discussed the possibility that a smaller pond station with green could get us to that target. based on initial analysis, that has been determined that with three could meet the target of three. the cost however would be $290 million. we recommend the two hundred $90 million with the $13 million difference from the $277 million, again, being allocated from the infrastructure $400 million commitment. again, as this project is developed, we can determine the right combination of pumping and infrastructure to obtain its objectives. this will be using the watershed
process regarding the triple bottom line and will also be once the discharges are finally sat and on the early in the mentation of the performance of green. when we summarize the green infrastructure, we see it plays a significant role in the strategies of the collection system. we start with the four hundred million dollar commitment that we have made. we're looking at $57 million for the eight early implantation projects that will be implemented across the city. we're also going to have $6 million committed to ongoing citywide planning. that will leverage the results of additional projects, and identify additional city
projects that warrant implementation. you can see the allocation of the $51 million and the $13 million to the central bayside and the west side pomp station projects, with the remaining two hundred $73 million available for projects -- $two hundred 73 million available for projects throughout the city. these projects would have an impact of $5 per month on the average repair bill. in summary, when we presented our final costs at the end of workshops 1 and 2, we identified about $3.9 billion for treatment costs, and about two $0.7 billion for system collection costs for a total of the $6.998 billion.
in total today, the treatment is now $3.8 billion. the collection systems cost said the same. -- stays the same. and we have a total of 6.9 $3 billion for the overall -- $6.93 billion for the overall ssip project. that is all we have today. if there are questions, we will respond. >> that does bring us up to speed as to where we are. i think, questions or comments from the commission? >> i just want to make a couple of comments. first, i want to say thank you and i appreciate your work to accelerate the work in the southeast. i know that we have heard a lot from the public over the last
two meetings, over the many years actually, about the importance of bringing items online. i did hear you say you will continue to work to accelerate those projects in the southeast if possible. i would urge you to continue to do that. i want to appreciate your efforts in that direction, because it sounds like he will be able to bring as part? online earlier than anticipated. i want to thank you for that -- bring those projects on my earlier than anticipated. i want to thank you for the green projects. i feel like after looking at the level of service and the goals, and particularly, the added benefits that will come from green infrastructure, that we are integrating that with the gray infrastructure. that makes a lot of sense and i know how hard it is -- has been
to crunch those numbers and look at all of the different outcomes that will work. i want to applaud you for that. i wanted to give those two comments to contextualize and open it up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. other comments from commissioners? >> i did not quite understand why moving up the timetable for the digesters can save us money. that is question no. one. and question no. 2, if that is the case, how about moving up other parts of it? with that a bus more money? >> very good questions, commissioner. the reason is tied to escalation. because we're looking at a lengthy time frame for implementation, we have assumptions of the cost of this over time. the costs of this program have escalated at 4% per year for
the first 10 years and 5% per year for the second tenures. and just moving those digester projects earlier in the program, that is a $65 million savings. that is dramatic. when we look at the total program, it is even more dramatic in that of the $6.9 billion program, about $1.6 billion is escalation. absolutely, the faster we can get projects online, there will always be opportunities for savings. >> i have another question. the tunnel, the 30 ft. versus 23, there must have been a reason why you first thought 30 ft.. will the 23 suffice? >> the way things will be look bad -- will be looked at is that
right now, we do not know what size the tunnel will be. a lot more study needs to be undertaken. and the future regulatory requirements will play into that. what we have looked at is the 30-foot tunnel gets us to 10 by itself. the greenwood also get us to 10. the issue we want to look at here is whether there is another combination. does 28 give us almost to 30 and with another combination of green? we have looked at this through triple bottom line and through the regulatory process to get us to that. we want to look the future flexibility requirements that the operators need to maintain system controlled during wet weather events. all of those things will be factored into the final analysis.
>> so right now, that is a fuzzy number. we do not know what the requirement would have to be. >> fair enough. >> thank you. >> correct me if i am wrong, but i think the funniest part of its is the money that will be spent. you have put enough money in to cover either option. you may have more or less gray, more or less green in the element. that will depend in part on how those early actions turn out. that $57 million, one way i look at it is a pilot project. we are not exactly sure how they are going to perform. we need to measure it and make
our plans accordingly. i think that makes a lot of sense. >> any other questions, commissioners? >> we can pull these additional things up. now, we will go to the next section, the implementation strategy. this is based on commissioner feedback that we have gotten and concerned about minimizing rate impacts on our customers. what we are recommending the commission include is implementation of the program in three phases. what we are looking at trying to move forward with is a first phase with things that are well- defined such as replacing the
digesters and focusing our resources on the highest priority projects so that we can have prudent spending. we are looking at investing phase one time on projects where we need additional planning development, things like the tunnel that we were just talking about. what size will it be? is it 23 or 25? how do the conversations with the regulatory agencies play out? if we look at the three phases, phase one would take us from planning to construction and digesters is a great one. i will go through in detail what is in each phase. we would look at other projects such as central bayside, taking it through planning and environmental review. we would know the regulatory climate and have a better defined cost. we would also like to include
performance-based pilot work like the early implementation projects, which will help us put these puzzle pieces together. phases two and three would continue to implement the things that we had been planning. the other thing to note is, in the past few weeks, as we have looked closer at projects, some of them land to r & r. if we were looking to the pump system. we want to take a close look at those projects and see if they can be folded into the baradar program. that would be happening in parallel. i want to briefly go through the phases so you get a feel for how we have separated the projects.
phase one, this is the phase we are looking to proceed with the planning and developing it. planning and construction would be including for the new biosolids and digesters facilities. we would have the green infrastructure early improvement projects constructed and operating. and we would have a number of other higher priority improvements that are to occur. if you look down to the lower part of the slide, we will look at completing our planning and ceqa work for our treatment process improvement, to be able to look at our citywide green program, where we have to get through our water assessments and conduct additional assessment on our planning to determine what those projects will be. the slide that dan just went through it ended up being about $273 million of green
infrastructure that would be built throughout the city. this list lays out the first chunk. we are not talking about changing the program. we are talking about implementing it in pieces. if we were to roll out what that looks like on the score sheet, phase one would have treatment plants at $2.2 billion. and $354 million collection system and $125 million for program management. i want you to focus on the next slide which is our whole schedule laid out in a very small graphic. it gives you an idea. we are talking about the whole program and slicing its interfaces. phase one would predominantly be about six years to complete with the exception of the digester project. the digester project is complex because you have a number of
maneuvers to go through. you have to obtain a site, clear the site, it takes a little bit longer. in the 10-year range to complete the entire effort. both of those would outline what we are looking at in black. if we were to move on to what would face to entail, it would be taking projects that have completed planning and getting them through design and construction. at the top of the list, you will see demolition of existing digesters. now we have the digesters, they are designed and moved along. we want to go through the public planning process to determine how we want to use that site. how are we going to reprogram that site? we are going to be demolishing the existing digesters that are
there now, just across the street from the residence, and have an opportunity to improve that location. that would be the $371 million that is shown there. there are a number of other large projects for the treatment plants. the first phase of our city wide green infrastructure projects and the combined discharge structure refurbishments. taking all this planning work and getting it through design and construction. when we look at southeast plants, we are looking at doing all of our planning up front in phase one so we will know everything that is going to occur, the timing. we are looking at phasing the construction and the construction dollars. if we were to lay that on the scorecard for phase two, that is approximately $3.2 billion. the breakdown is shown for
treatment, collection, and program management. if you look further at this schedule, the implementation schedule, face to is laid out on the timeline. some of our projects are going all the way out to your 20 of the program. if we look at phase three of our implementation strategy, that is finishing delivering the entire $6.933 million. we are completing other programmatic work. if you look at that, it is just under $1 billion. if we lay it out on the schedule, we have the complete 20-year program. we have three phases of funding. what we would be looking to do is getting planning started, coming back to the commission as
projects get more defined, requesting authorization of funding as we know how big things are going to be and we have a better definition of some of the projects that may be slightly fuzzy. if we lay it all of the phases out together, we are back to art $6.933 billion. we are changing the authorization of the funds, not the timing of the program. president moran: any questions or comments? i have a question. i am looking at the phase three chart. the central bayside, that is the 23-foot versus 30-foot pipe, is that correct? >> yes.
there is also a connector tunnel. it has quite a few things in that scope. my eyes are going. president moran: when in that is the sizing decision made? >> now we have to go back. i am going to click back to go back to phase one. it is phase one when we would be making that decision. i apologize for clicking back, but if we were to look at the central bayside system line, the second line from the bottom, it would be after the green bar. after the planning portion has been completed, we are saying, it is a 28-foot tunnel and we are doing $300 million of green with that. if it is a 27-foot tunnel, we would come back to you with the
alternative analysis and look for authorization to move forward. >> i am looking a couple of lines above that, the green infrastructure, early implementation. those are the projects that we are putting -- piloting. it seems as though the end of those projects is considerably after those decisions. >> we want to build them in the first three years but monitor their performance for up to five years. we may get lucky and get some good it wet weather years. we want to make sure we have enough wet weather data to see how they function. president moran: that is part of my question. how can we make a sizing decision before that has happened? before that is constructed or before we have some experience? >> as we enter into this negotiation with the epa and
regional board, we will get immediate and strong reaction as to how our bayside system has to function. right now, the driver is to get to 10. that will help us. we will be able to narrow down through hydraulic bottling and sizing as to how we can actually achieve that. >> the other thought is that collection is something like 10 or 12 those projects -- >> 8. >> they do not all start at the same time. it should give us enough information as we are making the decision about central bayside to know which ones look the most promising. president moran: so far, this is all ink on paper and it is not -- we are not making appropriations for specific projects at this point. that said, i want to make sure
that the piloting is a meaningful process that produces information we can use in making decisions. and that we do not either oversize the pipe or undersized it because we are being too optimistic. i want to use the information that we get from that. that is my take on this. it would not even be a question if those projects were not starting until sometime after the completion of the early implementation projects. you have moved this much sooner. i like moving faster, but i am concerned about making productive use of the information we are trying for. >> the valencia street project, which is in design now, in construction next summer -- >> we are hoping to have it by
spring. >> we are aware of that and rafael is our project manager. that project is currently in design and would start construction next summer. we would have wet weather information the subsequent year, the year of 2014. we are trying to push the projects that would inform the bayside process to move ahead a little bit faster. you bring up a good cautioned. we have to make sure they are in the ground first and that we can collect enough information so that we know how things will perform. >> it does not look like it would significantly change phase one. it might change phase two. one of the things that is in the resolution that is in front of you -- we have had some discussion back and forth. as we are looking at some of the
alternatives, i want to make sure that those alternatives served a purpose. that they recharge the offer in a measurable way. -- the aquafer in a measurable way. so that is going to be a trade- off. we need to have that trade off made in an explicit way. that is reflected in the resolution. i think it will work itself out. >> that is a very good point. >> i just want to echo that. maybe there are a couple of things that you could do, maybe prioritize one of the pilots that is similar in condition to the site so that that could happen on a faster track. there is a lot of technology
being used in other cities. if you cannot bring one online quickly enough, find one that is close enough to condition and it might be a way to collect information pretty soon to be able to inform the decision. >> i second that. as far as prioritizing some of those projects, it is the east side projects that we need to know about. as it turns out, the west side, we do not need those projects as much. it is a lot easier to do them. on the east side, it is tougher to do and we do not know where the performance is going to be. that is where the big money comes from. we can prioritize those projects in a productive way. commissioner moller caen: i do not know how to approach this exactly. this is my third go around with waste water. the last was in 2002.
that is 10 years ago. i am thinking about the folks in southeast. they have waited all this time. i am looking at this time line. those digesters are about 10 years out. i do not think it is right. i think we have to revisit this and see how we can speed up everything. it just is not right. >> i think you are right. certainly, if we can use alternative delivery mechanisms , the ceqa process is three years. a lot gets nested. you have to have a certain amount of planning to get into ceqa. then there will be a little bit of sign work afterwards. that is an up-front issue we will have to deal with. we agree and we want to see it happen sooner. it is such an important part of phase one. it is important that the funding
be included as phase one so we have an opportunity to throw everything at it to get this to happen as quickly as possible. dan, i am not sure that he mentioned, we will be improving the existing digesters so people in neighborhoods to have been nearly so long will have a nominal improvements and impacts from the existing digesters. we agree that we want to deliver this faster and make it happen faster. >> we all had the same reaction. great, we shaved 18 months off. that is still forever. the schedule looks like we will have see " review and schedule and design work which takes about five years. construction takes five more years. does that mean they get no benefits for those five years or are their incremental benefits? >> there will be incremental. i will ask